Thank you. I read both articles.
I think the phrase that puzzled me was "open pollinated" in conjunction with "GMO beets." Most gardeners and (at least) small growers use "open pollinated" to refer to plants left in their natural state for pollinators--bees, other insects (e.g., dragonflies, butterflies, native bees), and birds--to fertilize. "Open pollinated" is often used to refer to varieties/cultivars that have not been hybridized; certain traditional--i.e., non-gene-spliced--forms of hybridization require careful control of pollination, so the plants are raised in protected circumstances, not in open fields.
The GMO sugar beet is Beta vulgaris, as are all varieties of chard and table beets (beetroot to our British and other English-speaking friends). One of the lawsuits in question was joined by organic farmers in the Willamette Valley of Oregon who were concerned that their chard and table-beet products (seeds and veggies, and perhaps other products as well), grown very near some GMO sugar beet fields, would be embargoed by export clients in countries with very strict anti-GMO regulations, thus endangering the growers' livelihoods.
No Bt corn, milkweed, or related crops were discussed in either suit, but closely related principles seem to have been involved.
Thank you again.